Sunday, 16 December 2012

Sample of flaws in Gateway Cycling Provision

Below is my "teacher's red ink" on just one small section of the Gateway proposal. This shows how cycling provision has merely been bolted on as an inconvenience, rather than being properly thought through.

This is a great shame, as the scheme needs to meet ambitious non private car targets in order to gain approval, yet the cycling component is only planned to rise from a mere 4% to 5%.

Naturally, as all teachers say - the whole thing could and should do so much better:



Notes:

  • Best design practice for cycle routes is to maintain the same level of priority as the road they run parallel to. Failure to do this means endless slowing down to give way, this creating a needless split between cyclists who keep to these paths and those who prefer just to stay on the road.
  • Sustrans have recently produced guidance on how Toucan crossings can include intelligent sensors, and how they can also enable crossing without staggering.
  • Direct pedestrian access to some buildings in Zone B is welcome, but the Dutch "filtered permeability" concept would mandate direct pedestrian and cyclist access at ALL available opportunities.
Original drawing:

  •  Dark blue lines represent shared pedestrian and cycling routes.
  • Light blue lines represent pedestrian routes.
Notes: The designers have assumed that traffic will be low enough for sharing of space to be acceptable. In order to anticipate and provide for higher volumes of cycling, paths need to be segregated.

No comments:

Post a Comment